Why airplanes taxi

On Feb 6, 5:53*pm, Clark wrote:
"Snowbird" wrote in news:cGqqj.484$aX.475
@read4.inet.fi:







"Mxsmanic" wrote ...

The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.

Only with infinite friction.

I'm just applying your flavor of logic.

I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
the most recent black hole. ;-)

The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. *I've
illustrated why.

Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)

Would a PBY on the water do?

--
---
there should be a "sig" here- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now, that's a beautiful plane. I fell in love with that plane ever
since I watched Jaque Cousteau. I fell in love with the Hughes 300
helicopter ever since I watched Jack 'what's his name' of Mutual of
Omaha.

If I ever win the lottery, the PBY would be my traveling machine for
sure.

Wil

On Feb 6, 11:24*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward on the ground.

So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

The only thread better than this one was the one where the guy wanted
to get a uniform because he'd just gotten his PPL.

On Feb 6, 7:53*pm, wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:24*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:
Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward on the ground.

So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

The only thread better than this one was the one where the guy wanted
to get a uniform because he'd just gotten his PPL.

He almost convinced me to want one too. lol NOT! A flight suit and a
pair of NOMEX gloves would be cool though, well maybe an A-2 jacket
and a pilots' Ray Ban.

Wil

So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.


Some haphazard math here.. if space is indeed entirely frictionless,
which I highly doubt, then to accelerate a body of weight 1kg (2.2
lbs) to the speed of light (using a constant force of 1N (or 1 m/sec2
acceleration) would require a distance of 4.5*(10^16) meters or about
45000000000000 km which is about 300 billion miles. The work done/
energy needed would be about 450 trillion joules.
The time needed to achieve this feat would be about 9.5 yrs.. so no
its not instantaneous

It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.


On Feb 9, 12:37*am, wrote:
So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

Some haphazard math here.. if space is indeed entirely frictionless,
which I highly doubt, then to accelerate a body of weight 1kg (2.2
lbs) to the speed of light (using a constant force of 1N (or 1 m/sec2
acceleration) would require a distance of 4.5*(10^16) meters or about
45000000000000 km which is about 300 billion miles. The work done/
energy needed would be about 450 trillion joules.
The time needed to achieve this feat would be about 9.5 yrs.. so no
its not instantaneous

On Feb 10, 4:36*pm, Tina wrote:
It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.

Ah an oft stated idea but why? Is E not 0.5MC^2 ?

Where's the Ken when we need it?

Cheers

In article ,
WingFlaps wrote:

It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.

Ah an oft stated idea but why? Is E not 0.5MC^2 ?

reaching way way Way WAY back into college physics let's see if I remember
this correctly... because mass increases with velocity. If pressed, I may
even be able to find the formula in my quantum text.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Feb 10, 5:00*pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
In article ,

*WingFlaps wrote:
It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.

Ah an oft stated idea but why? Is E not 0.5MC^2 ?

reaching way way Way WAY back into college physics *let's see if I remember
this correctly... because mass increases with velocity. * If pressed, I may
even be able to find the formula in my quantum text.


Yes, that's it and the mass is "relativistic". No quantum theories
needed. The idea is that mass and energy are the same thing, so as you
accumulate velocity mass goes up so it takes more and more energy to
accelerate. Strangley, there's no reason why you can't go faster than
light (v=c is the only forbidden velocity) and in that universe MX
becomes impresses us more and more with every post while Dudley and
the rest of us forget how to fly... Now there's a thought.

Cheers

It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.


True, I just wanted to stay within the realms of Newtonian mechanics
for simplicity because the poster seemed to imply that a body will
reach a velocity of c if there is no friction instantaneously..